SnIPpets

Even if you are someone who does not completely understand the offside rule, it is more than likely that you are aware Brazilian footballer Neymar da Silva Santos Júnior, more commonly known as "Neymar", has been a pretty big deal in the world of football. In this blog we look at his recent success off the pitch at the EUIPO...

The new Copyright Directive 2019/790 was published in the Official Journal on Friday 17 May 2019 and the implementation period will kick in 20 days from that date of publication i.e. Friday 7 June 2019. That means that Member States will need to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 7 June 2021.

In the case of AMS Neve v Heritage Audio, the Advocate General has handed down a much awaited opinion on various questions referred for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal on the issue of jurisdiction to hear claims relating to EU trade marks.

Following the vote in the EU Parliament on 26 March 2019, today the EU Council has adopted the latest text of the new Copyright Directive which aims to make the legal framework on copyright fit-for-purpose in the digital age. Following the signature and publication of the Directive in the Official Journal of the EU, member states will have 24 months to transpose the new rules into their national law.

On Tuesday 26 March 2019, news broke that the new Copyright Directive in the Digital Single Market had been voted through the EU Parliament. The Directive, which has been the subject of the most intensive lobbying ever experienced in relation to new legislation, passed through the EU Parliament with 348 votes in favour, 274 votes against and 24 abstentions.

It is generally well known that the saisie-contrefaçon procedures in France and Belgium provide an easy route by which patentees can obtain samples of products thought to be infringing before commencing formal proceedings and the information thereby obtained can usually be used in proceedings in other jurisdictions.
Similar, albeit more restrictive, procedures are available in the English courts, as illustrated by the recent decision in Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG v Generics (UK) Ltd T/A Mylan and another [2019] EWHC 584 (Ch).